[RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
When people hear Minneapolis they think extreme cold, snow and ice. And we do get those things but most of the time it's like Chicago - endless, corrosive slush due to gross overuse of ice-melt chemicals. If the Hebie case really worked, and lasted long enough to justify its price, I'd probably get one. My winter bike has a 3-speed hub so it may be possible to get a case that fits. On Nov 24, 9:22 am, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: I am hopeful I will be able to get a Hebie that fits my new IGH. Chicago certainly does not get the snow and cold as bad as Minneapolis, but the city really goes nuts with the salt. Crazy as it sounds, it is arguably better to bike in Alaska or somewhere at higher elevation where lower temps keep the snow frozen. The snow slush salt mix in Chicago is just miserable. El Nino winters tend to bring less snow to Chicago. I am keeping my fingers crossed. On Nov 24, 8:53 am, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote: The reviews I have read of the Hebie are that it works very well indeed. The downside is that it only fits a few specific gear combinations. On Nov 23, 2009, at 8:43 PM, jim_OLP wrote: That Hebie think is the most interesting gadget I've seen in a long time! Not cheap, but if it really, really, really works, it could be great. On the other hand many a protective cover turns out to be merely a hard-to cleanaccumulatorof whatever it was supposed to keep out. I ride during the winter, on the Neptunian streets of Minneapolis, and chains are just eaten alive here. On Nov 23, 2:40 pm, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: Who's making these chain covers? Jim: There was a discussion on same over in the Peter White Bike group. http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle/browse_thread/ thread/... Consensus is the best were by the linked German company. The chain rubs against the guard, yes. But it remains relatively free of winter road gunk. On Nov 20, 4:47 pm, jim_OLP j...@landoloons.com wrote: Who's making these chain covers? On Nov 20, 5:03 am, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: In snowy salty conditions having no derailer to jam up with gunk while riding and less to clean (in fact there are German companies making swell plastic chain devices that snap over IGH drivetrains) hen you come home from an enjoyable ride enhances the fun. Depending on what your riding circumstances are, an IGH can be a good choice. On Nov 19, 11:27 pm, PATRICK MOORE bertin...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote: On Nov 19, 2009, at 5:16 PM, CycloFiend wrote: on 11/19/09 5:39 AM, Mark at mclbicy...@gmail.com wrote: Efficiency is a funny word to those who ride a bike for fun! I agree it may be important if you are in competition, but when I ride and I am out looking at the birds and the beautiful scenery, effeciency? Would you find a very poorly maintained bike fun to ride, even slowly? --one with inefficient brakes, sluggish tires, excessively tight bearings, badly lubed chain, handlebar awry, saddle badly placed, left pedal broken, derailleur mis-adjusted, and so forth? That's extreme, of course, but the extremes define the middle. All things being equal, of course an efficient bike is more fun, even if you are not trying to go particularly fast, since it does what you want it to do better than one that is not efficient. And the coincidence of what you want and what you get makes for fun! Patrick efficient cyclist and epistemologist Moore -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com (505) 227-0523- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners- bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch +unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/ group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
Patrick Wrote: --- I'm just waiting for an IG hub with a QR. Patrick is he really serious? Moore Your wait is over. The Rohloff is a QR IG hub. Richard I've got one, Gonet -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
The reviews I have read of the Hebie are that it works very well indeed. The downside is that it only fits a few specific gear combinations. On Nov 23, 2009, at 8:43 PM, jim_OLP wrote: That Hebie think is the most interesting gadget I've seen in a long time! Not cheap, but if it really, really, really works, it could be great. On the other hand many a protective cover turns out to be merely a hard-to clean accumulator of whatever it was supposed to keep out. I ride during the winter, on the Neptunian streets of Minneapolis, and chains are just eaten alive here. On Nov 23, 2:40 pm, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: Who's making these chain covers? Jim: There was a discussion on same over in the Peter White Bike group. http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle/browse_thread/ thread/... Consensus is the best were by the linked German company. The chain rubs against the guard, yes. But it remains relatively free of winter road gunk. On Nov 20, 4:47 pm, jim_OLP j...@landoloons.com wrote: Who's making these chain covers? On Nov 20, 5:03 am, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: In snowy salty conditions having no derailer to jam up with gunk while riding and less to clean (in fact there are German companies making swell plastic chain devices that snap over IGH drivetrains) hen you come home from an enjoyable ride enhances the fun. Depending on what your riding circumstances are, an IGH can be a good choice. On Nov 19, 11:27 pm, PATRICK MOORE bertin...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote: On Nov 19, 2009, at 5:16 PM, CycloFiend wrote: on 11/19/09 5:39 AM, Mark at mclbicy...@gmail.com wrote: Efficiency is a funny word to those who ride a bike for fun! I agree it may be important if you are in competition, but when I ride and I am out looking at the birds and the beautiful scenery, effeciency? Would you find a very poorly maintained bike fun to ride, even slowly? --one with inefficient brakes, sluggish tires, excessively tight bearings, badly lubed chain, handlebar awry, saddle badly placed, left pedal broken, derailleur mis-adjusted, and so forth? That's extreme, of course, but the extremes define the middle. All things being equal, of course an efficient bike is more fun, even if you are not trying to go particularly fast, since it does what you want it to do better than one that is not efficient. And the coincidence of what you want and what you get makes for fun! Patrick efficient cyclist and epistemologist Moore -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com (505) 227-0523- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners- bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch +unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/ group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
I am hopeful I will be able to get a Hebie that fits my new IGH. Chicago certainly does not get the snow and cold as bad as Minneapolis, but the city really goes nuts with the salt. Crazy as it sounds, it is arguably better to bike in Alaska or somewhere at higher elevation where lower temps keep the snow frozen. The snow slush salt mix in Chicago is just miserable. El Nino winters tend to bring less snow to Chicago. I am keeping my fingers crossed. On Nov 24, 8:53 am, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote: The reviews I have read of the Hebie are that it works very well indeed. The downside is that it only fits a few specific gear combinations. On Nov 23, 2009, at 8:43 PM, jim_OLP wrote: That Hebie think is the most interesting gadget I've seen in a long time! Not cheap, but if it really, really, really works, it could be great. On the other hand many a protective cover turns out to be merely a hard-to clean accumulator of whatever it was supposed to keep out. I ride during the winter, on the Neptunian streets of Minneapolis, and chains are just eaten alive here. On Nov 23, 2:40 pm, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: Who's making these chain covers? Jim: There was a discussion on same over in the Peter White Bike group. http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle/browse_thread/ thread/... Consensus is the best were by the linked German company. The chain rubs against the guard, yes. But it remains relatively free of winter road gunk. On Nov 20, 4:47 pm, jim_OLP j...@landoloons.com wrote: Who's making these chain covers? On Nov 20, 5:03 am, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: In snowy salty conditions having no derailer to jam up with gunk while riding and less to clean (in fact there are German companies making swell plastic chain devices that snap over IGH drivetrains) hen you come home from an enjoyable ride enhances the fun. Depending on what your riding circumstances are, an IGH can be a good choice. On Nov 19, 11:27 pm, PATRICK MOORE bertin...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote: On Nov 19, 2009, at 5:16 PM, CycloFiend wrote: on 11/19/09 5:39 AM, Mark at mclbicy...@gmail.com wrote: Efficiency is a funny word to those who ride a bike for fun! I agree it may be important if you are in competition, but when I ride and I am out looking at the birds and the beautiful scenery, effeciency? Would you find a very poorly maintained bike fun to ride, even slowly? --one with inefficient brakes, sluggish tires, excessively tight bearings, badly lubed chain, handlebar awry, saddle badly placed, left pedal broken, derailleur mis-adjusted, and so forth? That's extreme, of course, but the extremes define the middle. All things being equal, of course an efficient bike is more fun, even if you are not trying to go particularly fast, since it does what you want it to do better than one that is not efficient. And the coincidence of what you want and what you get makes for fun! Patrick efficient cyclist and epistemologist Moore -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com (505) 227-0523- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners- bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch +unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/ group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
On Nov 24, 2009, at 9:22 AM, JoelMatthews wrote: I am hopeful I will be able to get a Hebie that fits my new IGH. Chicago certainly does not get the snow and cold as bad as Minneapolis, but the city really goes nuts with the salt. I grew up in Elmhurst and go back every Christmas to see my Mom. It's damp and raw and feels colder at 40F than -10F in St. Paul. We generally have cold dry winters (not in the past decade when we've had like 8 of the warmest winters on record, but the winters have been mostly still dry so still more tolerable than Chicago). The snow stays good and frozen almost all winter until the awful early spring, followed by 6-8 weeks of frequent rain until mid-July. Then we get our annual 6 seeks of good weather, after which winter begins again. OK, I exaggerate slightly. Winter doesn't begin until mid- September. ;-) Crazy as it sounds, it is arguably better to bike in Alaska or somewhere at higher elevation where lower temps keep the snow frozen. The snow slush salt mix in Chicago is just miserable. El Nino winters tend to bring less snow to Chicago. I am keeping my fingers crossed. I think that's right. Cold keeps the water from being liquid and is *much* less sloppy that way. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
I find the most inefficient part of my setup is the guy doing the pedaling. With exception made to racing where such margins can be the difference between comparable atheletes, so says Lance, I think worrying about the IGH being 2 -5% less efficient is akin to a clydesdale like myself insisting they must have a Durace gruppo because of the weight savings. My being 5% more efficient probably makes much more difference than whether I ride IGH or Derailleur. On a hypothetical 250 lb clydesdale 5% equals 12.5 lbs fewer that would be getting hauled around or 5670 grams for you weight wenies. For context a Mavic Aksium wheelset weights in at 1885 grams, and the super light Riv Roadeo is 1814 g. Just saying On Nov 20, 7:38 am, It Depends dmccu...@gmail.com wrote: Berto's later work suggests much narrower gaps between derailer and IGH systems. Seehttp://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp52-2001.pdf (noting especially conclusion 2: Hub gears are generally about 2% lower in efficiency than derailleur-type gears. But there are exceptions.). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
[RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
Who's making these chain covers? Jim: There was a discussion on same over in the Peter White Bike group. http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle/browse_thread/thread/34d06e0d05abb4aa# Consensus is the best were by the linked German company. The chain rubs against the guard, yes. But it remains relatively free of winter road gunk. On Nov 20, 4:47 pm, jim_OLP j...@landoloons.com wrote: Who's making these chain covers? On Nov 20, 5:03 am, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: In snowy salty conditions having no derailer to jam up with gunk while riding and less to clean (in fact there are German companies making swell plastic chain devices that snap over IGH drivetrains) hen you come home from an enjoyable ride enhances the fun. Depending on what your riding circumstances are, an IGH can be a good choice. On Nov 19, 11:27 pm, PATRICK MOORE bertin...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote: On Nov 19, 2009, at 5:16 PM, CycloFiend wrote: on 11/19/09 5:39 AM, Mark at mclbicy...@gmail.com wrote: Efficiency is a funny word to those who ride a bike for fun! I agree it may be important if you are in competition, but when I ride and I am out looking at the birds and the beautiful scenery, effeciency? Would you find a very poorly maintained bike fun to ride, even slowly? --one with inefficient brakes, sluggish tires, excessively tight bearings, badly lubed chain, handlebar awry, saddle badly placed, left pedal broken, derailleur mis-adjusted, and so forth? That's extreme, of course, but the extremes define the middle. All things being equal, of course an efficient bike is more fun, even if you are not trying to go particularly fast, since it does what you want it to do better than one that is not efficient. And the coincidence of what you want and what you get makes for fun! Patrick efficient cyclist and epistemologist Moore -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com (505) 227-0523- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
[RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
That Hebie think is the most interesting gadget I've seen in a long time! Not cheap, but if it really, really, really works, it could be great. On the other hand many a protective cover turns out to be merely a hard-to clean accumulator of whatever it was supposed to keep out. I ride during the winter, on the Neptunian streets of Minneapolis, and chains are just eaten alive here. On Nov 23, 2:40 pm, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: Who's making these chain covers? Jim: There was a discussion on same over in the Peter White Bike group. http://groups.google.com/group/bicyclelifestyle/browse_thread/thread/... Consensus is the best were by the linked German company. The chain rubs against the guard, yes. But it remains relatively free of winter road gunk. On Nov 20, 4:47 pm, jim_OLP j...@landoloons.com wrote: Who's making these chain covers? On Nov 20, 5:03 am, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: In snowy salty conditions having no derailer to jam up with gunk while riding and less to clean (in fact there are German companies making swell plastic chain devices that snap over IGH drivetrains) hen you come home from an enjoyable ride enhances the fun. Depending on what your riding circumstances are, an IGH can be a good choice. On Nov 19, 11:27 pm, PATRICK MOORE bertin...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote: On Nov 19, 2009, at 5:16 PM, CycloFiend wrote: on 11/19/09 5:39 AM, Mark at mclbicy...@gmail.com wrote: Efficiency is a funny word to those who ride a bike for fun! I agree it may be important if you are in competition, but when I ride and I am out looking at the birds and the beautiful scenery, effeciency? Would you find a very poorly maintained bike fun to ride, even slowly? --one with inefficient brakes, sluggish tires, excessively tight bearings, badly lubed chain, handlebar awry, saddle badly placed, left pedal broken, derailleur mis-adjusted, and so forth? That's extreme, of course, but the extremes define the middle. All things being equal, of course an efficient bike is more fun, even if you are not trying to go particularly fast, since it does what you want it to do better than one that is not efficient. And the coincidence of what you want and what you get makes for fun! Patrick efficient cyclist and epistemologist Moore -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com (505) 227-0523- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
In snowy salty conditions having no derailer to jam up with gunk while riding and less to clean (in fact there are German companies making swell plastic chain devices that snap over IGH drivetrains) hen you come home from an enjoyable ride enhances the fun. Depending on what your riding circumstances are, an IGH can be a good choice. On Nov 19, 11:27 pm, PATRICK MOORE bertin...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote: On Nov 19, 2009, at 5:16 PM, CycloFiend wrote: on 11/19/09 5:39 AM, Mark at mclbicy...@gmail.com wrote: Efficiency is a funny word to those who ride a bike for fun! I agree it may be important if you are in competition, but when I ride and I am out looking at the birds and the beautiful scenery, effeciency? Would you find a very poorly maintained bike fun to ride, even slowly? --one with inefficient brakes, sluggish tires, excessively tight bearings, badly lubed chain, handlebar awry, saddle badly placed, left pedal broken, derailleur mis-adjusted, and so forth? That's extreme, of course, but the extremes define the middle. All things being equal, of course an efficient bike is more fun, even if you are not trying to go particularly fast, since it does what you want it to do better than one that is not efficient. And the coincidence of what you want and what you get makes for fun! Patrick efficient cyclist and epistemologist Moore -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com (505) 227-0523 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
Re: [RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 22:27 -0700, PATRICK MOORE wrote: Would you find a very poorly maintained bike fun to ride, even slowly? --one with inefficient brakes, sluggish tires, excessively tight bearings, badly lubed chain, handlebar awry, saddle badly placed, left pedal broken, derailleur mis-adjusted, and so forth? That's extreme, of course, but the extremes define the middle. All things being equal, of course an efficient bike is more fun, But your negative example doesn't demonstrate inefficiency, it demonstrates poor maintenance and poor adjustment. I don't think anyone would dispute that such a badly maintained bike would be unpleasant. But imagine a well maintained, well fitting bike with a demonstrably less efficient drivetrain that utilizes extremely small sprockets like the Capreo cassette -- say, for example, a high end Moulton. Science clearly shows, those 9, 10 and 11 tooth sprockets are far less efficient than 14 tooth. But people who ride those high end Moultons love them, and find them highly enjoyable to ride -- in fact, Moulton owners are a highly enthusiastic cult -- and never notice or remark on the proven inefficiency of their drivetrains. even if you are not trying to go particularly fast, since it does what you want it to do better than one that is not efficient. And the coincidence of what you want and what you get makes for fun! And by the way, those Moultons are very fast. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
Re: [RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
But your negative example doesn't demonstrate inefficiency, it demonstrates poor maintenance and poor adjustment. I don't think anyone would dispute that such a badly maintained bike would be unpleasant. It illustrates (demonstrate is the wrong word) extreme inefficiency, obviously. The real question is not about efficiency so much as about trade-offs between two incompatible sets of desirable qualities. I was trying to make that point to the original poster. The inefficiency difference between a ig hub and a derailleur drivetrain are IMO and IME too small for the everyday casual rider to notice. On 11/20/09, Steve Palincsar palin...@his.com wrote: On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 22:27 -0700, PATRICK MOORE wrote: Would you find a very poorly maintained bike fun to ride, even slowly? --one with inefficient brakes, sluggish tires, excessively tight bearings, badly lubed chain, handlebar awry, saddle badly placed, left pedal broken, derailleur mis-adjusted, and so forth? That's extreme, of course, but the extremes define the middle. All things being equal, of course an efficient bike is more fun, But your negative example doesn't demonstrate inefficiency, it demonstrates poor maintenance and poor adjustment. I don't think anyone would dispute that such a badly maintained bike would be unpleasant. But imagine a well maintained, well fitting bike with a demonstrably less efficient drivetrain that utilizes extremely small sprockets like the Capreo cassette -- say, for example, a high end Moulton. Science clearly shows, those 9, 10 and 11 tooth sprockets are far less efficient than 14 tooth. But people who ride those high end Moultons love them, and find them highly enjoyable to ride -- in fact, Moulton owners are a highly enthusiastic cult -- and never notice or remark on the proven inefficiency of their drivetrains. even if you are not trying to go particularly fast, since it does what you want it to do better than one that is not efficient. And the coincidence of what you want and what you get makes for fun! And by the way, those Moultons are very fast. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=. -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com (505) 227-0523 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
Re: [RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:17 AM, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: The real question is not about efficiency so much as about trade-offs between two incompatible sets of desirable qualities. I was trying to make that point to the original poster. The inefficiency difference between a ig hub and a derailleur drivetrain are IMO and IME too small for the everyday casual rider to notice. Or small enough that other benefits outweigh any efficiency drawback. Exactly. If I, the hard rider, the time trialer, the can't-go-slow man, ever fall low enough to build up once again a coasting (!!!), multispeed (!!) bike, I will probably choose an IG hub drivetrain. --- I'm just waiting for an IG hub with a QR. Patrick is he really serious? Moore Of which speaking: those big, asymmetrical wingnuts that the old, hardmen, Brit club riders used to use before Tullio's things got hold of them: I suppose they were tight enough to keep the wheel from slipping? -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com (505) 227-0523 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
[RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
Berto's later work suggests much narrower gaps between derailer and IGH systems. See http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp52-2001.pdf (noting especially conclusion 2: Hub gears are generally about 2% lower in efficiency than derailleur-type gears. But there are exceptions.). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
Re: [RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
Very interesting: apparently, at least on some hubs, direct drive is *more* efficient than any gear on a deraileur drivetrain. On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:38 AM, It Depends dmccu...@gmail.com wrote: Berto's later work suggests much narrower gaps between derailer and IGH systems. See http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp52-2001.pdf (noting especially conclusion 2: Hub gears are generally about 2% lower in efficiency than derailleur-type gears. But there are exceptions.). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comrbw-owners-bunch%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=. -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com (505) 227-0523 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
[RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
Rohloff has a qr option. On Nov 20, 9:29 am, PATRICK MOORE bertin...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:17 AM, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: The real question is not about efficiency so much as about trade-offs between two incompatible sets of desirable qualities. I was trying to make that point to the original poster. The inefficiency difference between a ig hub and a derailleur drivetrain are IMO and IME too small for the everyday casual rider to notice. Or small enough that other benefits outweigh any efficiency drawback. Exactly. If I, the hard rider, the time trialer, the can't-go-slow man, ever fall low enough to build up once again a coasting (!!!), multispeed (!!) bike, I will probably choose an IG hub drivetrain. --- I'm just waiting for an IG hub with a QR. Patrick is he really serious? Moore Of which speaking: those big, asymmetrical wingnuts that the old, hardmen, Brit club riders used to use before Tullio's things got hold of them: I suppose they were tight enough to keep the wheel from slipping? -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com(505) 227-0523 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
[RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
If I, the hard rider, the time trialer, the can't-go-slow man, ever fall low enough to build up once again a coasting (!!!), multispeed (!!) bike, I will probably choose an IG hub drivetrain. I am having a frame made, which, as the Quickbeam, can accommodate single speed set up and an IG hub (actually mine will be somewhat more versatile as it will have an EBB). I am going to try the Alfine. Assuming the builder gets it to me soon (his flickr page shows the frame is done, but not painted yet) this is going to see some heavy winter duty. I will report back in a few months with my Alfine impressions. On Nov 20, 9:29 am, PATRICK MOORE bertin...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:17 AM, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: The real question is not about efficiency so much as about trade-offs between two incompatible sets of desirable qualities. I was trying to make that point to the original poster. The inefficiency difference between a ig hub and a derailleur drivetrain are IMO and IME too small for the everyday casual rider to notice. Or small enough that other benefits outweigh any efficiency drawback. Exactly. If I, the hard rider, the time trialer, the can't-go-slow man, ever fall low enough to build up once again a coasting (!!!), multispeed (!!) bike, I will probably choose an IG hub drivetrain. --- I'm just waiting for an IG hub with a QR. Patrick is he really serious? Moore Of which speaking: those big, asymmetrical wingnuts that the old, hardmen, Brit club riders used to use before Tullio's things got hold of them: I suppose they were tight enough to keep the wheel from slipping? -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com (505) 227-0523 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
Re: [RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
Report back too on the EBB; I've thought of this solution to flip-flop hubs and disk brakes. On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 9:32 AM, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: If I, the hard rider, the time trialer, the can't-go-slow man, ever fall low enough to build up once again a coasting (!!!), multispeed (!!) bike, I will probably choose an IG hub drivetrain. I am having a frame made, which, as the Quickbeam, can accommodate single speed set up and an IG hub (actually mine will be somewhat more versatile as it will have an EBB). I am going to try the Alfine. Assuming the builder gets it to me soon (his flickr page shows the frame is done, but not painted yet) this is going to see some heavy winter duty. I will report back in a few months with my Alfine impressions. On Nov 20, 9:29 am, PATRICK MOORE bertin...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:17 AM, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: The real question is not about efficiency so much as about trade-offs between two incompatible sets of desirable qualities. I was trying to make that point to the original poster. The inefficiency difference between a ig hub and a derailleur drivetrain are IMO and IME too small for the everyday casual rider to notice. Or small enough that other benefits outweigh any efficiency drawback. Exactly. If I, the hard rider, the time trialer, the can't-go-slow man, ever fall low enough to build up once again a coasting (!!!), multispeed (!!) bike, I will probably choose an IG hub drivetrain. --- I'm just waiting for an IG hub with a QR. Patrick is he really serious? Moore Of which speaking: those big, asymmetrical wingnuts that the old, hardmen, Brit club riders used to use before Tullio's things got hold of them: I suppose they were tight enough to keep the wheel from slipping? -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com (505) 227-0523 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comrbw-owners-bunch%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=. -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com (505) 227-0523 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
[RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
Eric, I do understand your point. I also agree with Jim. The great thing about a bicycle is that its just thatA bicycle! A mechanical machine that has been fascinating weird humans like us for over a century...I think tweaking with it is what makes it a great toy for the gadget minded/kindof/curious person. Also Riv's and other similar bikes attract folks who want quality. Otherwise we wouldnt be talking or goofing off blogging like we like to do!.I dig bicyles and I like deraileurs too! I just dig the IGH more, and you hurt my feelings when you started to belittle my beloved IGH AS InEfFeCiEnT.bOO-hOOjust kiddin:)) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
[RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
On Nov 20, 10:29 am, PATRICK MOORE bertin...@gmail.com wrote: If I, the hard rider, the time trialer, the can't-go-slow man, ever fall low enough to build up once again a coasting (!!!), multispeed (!!) bike, I will probably choose an IG hub drivetrain. well, that's the thing. if you like to ride hard, you may not dig the ig. i've used an IG hub (nexus 8 redband) for some longer brevets and harder efforts and it just doesn't jive with my riding style for that kind of riding. I like to get out of the saddle, accelerate hard, attack hills, etc. - I ride hard. but never felt comfortable doing that on the IG and I definitely noticed a difference performance, esp. over long distances. it's almost like it forced me to ride casually. no question, I'd rather ride fixed gear on a longer brevet than use my IG hub. and i'd rather use derailers than ride fixed gear if we're talking 200k +. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
Re: [RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
on 11/19/09 7:50 PM, Tim McNamara at tim...@bitstream.net wrote: On Nov 19, 2009, at 5:16 PM, CycloFiend wrote: on 11/19/09 5:39 AM, Mark at mclbicy...@gmail.com wrote: Efficiency is a funny word to those who ride a bike for fun! I agree it may be important if you are in competition, but when I ride and I am out looking at the birds and the beautiful scenery, effeciency? To me, thats why I was attracted to Grant, because his whole philosophy about bike riding has been forgotten by the industry that has forgotten what it was like as a kid to just go out and have fun riding a bike. Thats what makes the RIV so much better and fun! No offense intended Eric, People do ride bikes for different reasons and if training or competition is important, stay with the deraileur! I think the bicycle is the most wonderfully efficient tool we've managed to come up with, and don't find the ideas of effiency to be at odds with GP or Rivendell in general. Well, we're begging the question efficiency for what? For a Tour de France TT? Or for a pleasant afternoon's ride on a sunny day? Good question. I think my point was that the feeling of efficiency is part of my enjoyment, whether riding to the farmer's market of pushing my meagre speed envelope. The efficiency of a fixed gear resonates with me, as does a rigid mtb. I know there are some limitations with those choices, but prefer the limitations with those systems. Recently I got back on the Quickbeam-in-fixed-mode after a bit of a layoff, and reminded myself of that feeling. Rode around thinking why do I mess around with coastable, many-geared setups anyway? Of course, there were some climbs which reminded me of why... ;^) - Jim -- Jim Edgar cyclofi...@earthlink.net ³Velvet pillows, safari parks, sunglasses: people have become woolly mice. They still have bodies that can walk for five days and four nights through a desert of snow, without food, but they accept praise for having taken a one-hour bicycle ride.² - Tim Krabbe, The Rider Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com Current Classics - Cross Bikes Singlespeed - Working Bikes Send In Your Photos! - Here's how: http://www.cyclofiend.com/guidelines -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
[RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
On Nov 20, 2009, at 9:52 AM, PATRICK MOORE wrote: On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:38 AM, It Depends dmccu...@gmail.com wrote: Berto's later work suggests much narrower gaps between derailer and IGH systems. See http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp52-2001.pdf (noting especially conclusion 2: Hub gears are generally about 2% lower in efficiency than derailleur-type gears. But there are exceptions.). Very interesting: apparently, at least on some hubs, direct drive is *more* efficient than any gear on a deraileur drivetrain. Not really surprising. The derailleur sends the chain through two jockey wheels which wrap the chain around a tight radius. Those of us who ride fixed gears (no longer me) have probably noticed we can swing a bit taller gear in most situations than we'd be comfortable doing with a derailleur. My guess is that friction losses in wrapping the chain around the jockey wheels and friction in the jockey bearings is why. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
Re: [RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
That conception was why te Tour de France was raced in fixed gears into the 1930s. Racers felt that derailleurs were inefficient. The Dancing Chain provides an excellen account of the difficulties faced by multiple-speed systems in the early years. Tourists embraced gearing long before racers did. --Eric Norris Sent via iPhone On Nov 20, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote: On Nov 20, 2009, at 9:52 AM, PATRICK MOORE wrote: On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:38 AM, It Depends dmccu...@gmail.com wrote: Berto's later work suggests much narrower gaps between derailer and IGH systems. See http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp52-2001.pdf (noting especially conclusion 2: Hub gears are generally about 2% lower in efficiency than derailleur-type gears. But there are exceptions.). Very interesting: apparently, at least on some hubs, direct drive is *more* efficient than any gear on a deraileur drivetrain. Not really surprising. The derailleur sends the chain through two jockey wheels which wrap the chain around a tight radius. Those of us who ride fixed gears (no longer me) have probably noticed we can swing a bit taller gear in most situations than we'd be comfortable doing with a derailleur. My guess is that friction losses in wrapping the chain around the jockey wheels and friction in the jockey bearings is why. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners- bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl= . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
Re: [RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
on 11/20/09 10:57 AM, Tim McNamara at tim...@bitstream.net wrote: On Nov 20, 2009, at 9:52 AM, PATRICK MOORE wrote: On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:38 AM, It Depends dmccu...@gmail.com wrote: Berto's later work suggests much narrower gaps between derailer and IGH systems. See http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp52-2001.pdf (noting especially conclusion 2: Hub gears are generally about 2% lower in efficiency than derailleur-type gears. But there are exceptions.). Very interesting: apparently, at least on some hubs, direct drive is *more* efficient than any gear on a deraileur drivetrain. Not really surprising. The derailleur sends the chain through two jockey wheels which wrap the chain around a tight radius. Those of us who ride fixed gears (no longer me) have probably noticed we can swing a bit taller gear in most situations than we'd be comfortable doing with a derailleur. My guess is that friction losses in wrapping the chain around the jockey wheels and friction in the jockey bearings is why. Not sure I agree with your police work there... ;^) As Eric noted, The Dancing Chain covers that. The big gain in a fixed-gear system is that the momentum of the bicycle/rider helps to drive the cranks through the deadspots in most people's pedaling stroke. I know I feel it when switching back to a coastable setup, as my feet will tend to lag when climbing for the first hill or two. I'd reckon that if you had a fixed-gear-derailleur-shifted setup (which I had once when a freewheel pawl jammed once upon a time), there'd be little noticeable difference. - J -- Jim Edgar cyclofi...@earthlink.net Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com Current Classics - Cross Bikes Singlespeed - Working Bikes Get your photos posted: http://www.cyclofiend.com/guidelines Then I sat up, wiped the water out of my eyes, and looked at my bike, and just like that I knew it was dead -- Robert McCammon, Boy's Life -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
[RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
Who's making these chain covers? On Nov 20, 5:03 am, JoelMatthews joelmatth...@mac.com wrote: In snowy salty conditions having no derailer to jam up with gunk while riding and less to clean (in fact there are German companies making swell plastic chain devices that snap over IGH drivetrains) hen you come home from an enjoyable ride enhances the fun. Depending on what your riding circumstances are, an IGH can be a good choice. On Nov 19, 11:27 pm, PATRICK MOORE bertin...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote: On Nov 19, 2009, at 5:16 PM, CycloFiend wrote: on 11/19/09 5:39 AM, Mark at mclbicy...@gmail.com wrote: Efficiency is a funny word to those who ride a bike for fun! I agree it may be important if you are in competition, but when I ride and I am out looking at the birds and the beautiful scenery, effeciency? Would you find a very poorly maintained bike fun to ride, even slowly? --one with inefficient brakes, sluggish tires, excessively tight bearings, badly lubed chain, handlebar awry, saddle badly placed, left pedal broken, derailleur mis-adjusted, and so forth? That's extreme, of course, but the extremes define the middle. All things being equal, of course an efficient bike is more fun, even if you are not trying to go particularly fast, since it does what you want it to do better than one that is not efficient. And the coincidence of what you want and what you get makes for fun! Patrick efficient cyclist and epistemologist Moore -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com (505) 227-0523 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
[RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
Mechanical inefficiency of the drivetrain is not the only thing that makes a cyclist slower. Let's say, for example, that 90% of the total inefficiency comes from tire rolling resistance and aerodynamics, and 10% comes from the mechanical friction and slop in the drivetrain. Then the total effect of a 6% drop in mechanical efficiency would translate to something like 10% of a 6% drop in speed (i.e. 0.6%). Approximately. My numbers are for illustrative purposes only, not based on actual measurements of inefficiency. On Nov 19, 8:17 am, Ron Farnsworth r2far...@yahoo.com wrote: Bad math. If 96% efficient = 5.2 mph, then 90% efficient would be 4.875 mph, not 5.1 mph. And that's with worst case efficiency numbers for the chain setup and best case efficiency numbers for the IGH. Based on this, the other calculations are off too. Correct me if I'm wrong. --- On Thu, 11/19/09, Eric Norris campyonly...@me.com wrote: From: Eric Norris campyonly...@me.com Subject: [RBW] Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Date: Thursday, November 19, 2009, 12:35 AM For those who don't have a copy of The Dancing Chain laying around the house, here's a summary of what Frank Berto said about internally geared hubs (IGHs), which is itself a summary of extensive bench testing done in 1998: --Standard derailleur systems achieve 98-99 percent efficiency when the chain is running straight, and 96-97 when in cross-chain mode (such as small cog/small chainring) --Internally geared hubs ranged between 80 and 90 percent efficiency, achieving higher efficiency in lower gears. One IGH tested in direct- drive mode was 95 percent efficient. Berto compared a typical rider (generating 1/8 horsepower) riding up a 4 percent grade in a low (31-inch) gear. --With a standard derailleur bike operating at 96 percent efficiency, the typical rider could climb at 5.2 mph at a cadence of 60 rpm --With an IGH operating at 90 percent, the same rider would be 6 percent less efficient, dropping his/her speed to 5.1 mph Those numbers don't sound too bad, at least for shorter riders. A 4- hour ride on a standard geared bike would take about 4 hours and 15 minutes (or less, since the efficiency of the IGH wouldn't matter at all on downhills). However, applied to an event like PBP, an 84-hour time would become 89 hours if the bike became 6 percent less efficient (or, assuming that half of PBP is more or less downhill, 84 hours would become 87 1/2). I'll continue to test this in the field and see how my Quickbeam's 8- speed Sturmey Archer performs. P.S. No, the vaunted 14-speed Rohloff hub was not part of the '98 test. It's hard to see how it could be too much more efficient than other IGHs, but it could be somewhat closer to a standard setup. P.P.S. If you haven't read The Dancing Chain, you really should. It's a fascinating look back at the early days of cycling, and it proves once again that everything new in bicycling today was in fact invented 100 years ago. Really. --Ericwww.wheelsnorth.orgwww.campyonly.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
Re: [RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
Jim: You're right, of course. If you look at Berto's numbers, a drop from 5.2 to 5.1mph is a 2% decrease, not 6%. Obviously, other factors are involved in how fast you go, not just the efficiency of the drivetrain. Applied to my PBP example, going 2% slower would add about 1.7 hours to an 84-hour PBP (again, probably less time would be added when the downhill sections are factored in). --Eric campyonly...@me.com www.campyonly.com www.wheelsnorth.org On Nov 19, 2009, at 7:26 AM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: Mechanical inefficiency of the drivetrain is not the only thing that makes a cyclist slower. Let's say, for example, that 90% of the total inefficiency comes from tire rolling resistance and aerodynamics, and 10% comes from the mechanical friction and slop in the drivetrain. Then the total effect of a 6% drop in mechanical efficiency would translate to something like 10% of a 6% drop in speed (i.e. 0.6%). Approximately. My numbers are for illustrative purposes only, not based on actual measurements of inefficiency. On Nov 19, 8:17 am, Ron Farnsworth r2far...@yahoo.com wrote: Bad math. If 96% efficient = 5.2 mph, then 90% efficient would be 4.875 mph, not 5.1 mph. And that's with worst case efficiency numbers for the chain setup and best case efficiency numbers for the IGH. Based on this, the other calculations are off too. Correct me if I'm wrong. --- On Thu, 11/19/09, Eric Norris campyonly...@me.com wrote: From: Eric Norris campyonly...@me.com Subject: [RBW] Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Date: Thursday, November 19, 2009, 12:35 AM For those who don't have a copy of The Dancing Chain laying around the house, here's a summary of what Frank Berto said about internally geared hubs (IGHs), which is itself a summary of extensive bench testing done in 1998: --Standard derailleur systems achieve 98-99 percent efficiency when the chain is running straight, and 96-97 when in cross-chain mode (such as small cog/small chainring) --Internally geared hubs ranged between 80 and 90 percent efficiency, achieving higher efficiency in lower gears. One IGH tested in direct- drive mode was 95 percent efficient. Berto compared a typical rider (generating 1/8 horsepower) riding up a 4 percent grade in a low (31-inch) gear. --With a standard derailleur bike operating at 96 percent efficiency, the typical rider could climb at 5.2 mph at a cadence of 60 rpm --With an IGH operating at 90 percent, the same rider would be 6 percent less efficient, dropping his/her speed to 5.1 mph Those numbers don't sound too bad, at least for shorter riders. A 4- hour ride on a standard geared bike would take about 4 hours and 15 minutes (or less, since the efficiency of the IGH wouldn't matter at all on downhills). However, applied to an event like PBP, an 84-hour time would become 89 hours if the bike became 6 percent less efficient (or, assuming that half of PBP is more or less downhill, 84 hours would become 87 1/2). I'll continue to test this in the field and see how my Quickbeam's 8- speed Sturmey Archer performs. P.S. No, the vaunted 14-speed Rohloff hub was not part of the '98 test. It's hard to see how it could be too much more efficient than other IGHs, but it could be somewhat closer to a standard setup. P.P.S. If you haven't read The Dancing Chain, you really should. It's a fascinating look back at the early days of cycling, and it proves once again that everything new in bicycling today was in fact invented 100 years ago. Really. --Ericwww.wheelsnorth.orgwww.campyonly.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=. --Eric campyonly...@me.com www.campyonly.com www.wheelsnorth.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
[RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
I'll bet these estimates assume a clean, oiled chain and cog set, as well as pulleys and rings. I wonder what the calculation would be with a couple of pounds of winter slush over the drive system! Then add studded tires to the equation. Michael Westford, Vt I can resist anything except temptation. On Nov 19, 11:23 am, Eric Norris campyonly...@me.com wrote: Jim: You're right, of course. If you look at Berto's numbers, a drop from 5.2 to 5.1mph is a 2% decrease, not 6%. Obviously, other factors are involved in how fast you go, not just the efficiency of the drivetrain. Applied to my PBP example, going 2% slower would add about 1.7 hours to an 84-hour PBP (again, probably less time would be added when the downhill sections are factored in). --Eric campyonly...@me.comwww.campyonly.comwww.wheelsnorth.org On Nov 19, 2009, at 7:26 AM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: Mechanical inefficiency of the drivetrain is not the only thing that makes a cyclist slower. Let's say, for example, that 90% of the total inefficiency comes from tire rolling resistance and aerodynamics, and 10% comes from the mechanical friction and slop in the drivetrain. Then the total effect of a 6% drop in mechanical efficiency would translate to something like 10% of a 6% drop in speed (i.e. 0.6%). Approximately. My numbers are for illustrative purposes only, not based on actual measurements of inefficiency. On Nov 19, 8:17 am, Ron Farnsworth r2far...@yahoo.com wrote: Bad math. If 96% efficient = 5.2 mph, then 90% efficient would be 4.875 mph, not 5.1 mph. And that's with worst case efficiency numbers for the chain setup and best case efficiency numbers for the IGH. Based on this, the other calculations are off too. Correct me if I'm wrong. --- On Thu, 11/19/09, Eric Norris campyonly...@me.com wrote: From: Eric Norris campyonly...@me.com Subject: [RBW] Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Date: Thursday, November 19, 2009, 12:35 AM For those who don't have a copy of The Dancing Chain laying around the house, here's a summary of what Frank Berto said about internally geared hubs (IGHs), which is itself a summary of extensive bench testing done in 1998: --Standard derailleur systems achieve 98-99 percent efficiency when the chain is running straight, and 96-97 when in cross-chain mode (such as small cog/small chainring) --Internally geared hubs ranged between 80 and 90 percent efficiency, achieving higher efficiency in lower gears. One IGH tested in direct- drive mode was 95 percent efficient. Berto compared a typical rider (generating 1/8 horsepower) riding up a 4 percent grade in a low (31-inch) gear. --With a standard derailleur bike operating at 96 percent efficiency, the typical rider could climb at 5.2 mph at a cadence of 60 rpm --With an IGH operating at 90 percent, the same rider would be 6 percent less efficient, dropping his/her speed to 5.1 mph Those numbers don't sound too bad, at least for shorter riders. A 4- hour ride on a standard geared bike would take about 4 hours and 15 minutes (or less, since the efficiency of the IGH wouldn't matter at all on downhills). However, applied to an event like PBP, an 84-hour time would become 89 hours if the bike became 6 percent less efficient (or, assuming that half of PBP is more or less downhill, 84 hours would become 87 1/2). I'll continue to test this in the field and see how my Quickbeam's 8- speed Sturmey Archer performs. P.S. No, the vaunted 14-speed Rohloff hub was not part of the '98 test. It's hard to see how it could be too much more efficient than other IGHs, but it could be somewhat closer to a standard setup. P.P.S. If you haven't read The Dancing Chain, you really should. It's a fascinating look back at the early days of cycling, and it proves once again that everything new in bicycling today was in fact invented 100 years ago. Really. --Ericwww.wheelsnorth.orgwww.campyonly.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=. --Eric campyonly...@me.comwww.campyonly.comwww.wheelsnorth.org- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are
Re: [RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 07:26 -0800, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: Mechanical inefficiency of the drivetrain is not the only thing that makes a cyclist slower. Let's say, for example, that 90% of the total inefficiency comes from tire rolling resistance and aerodynamics, and 10% comes from the mechanical friction and slop in the drivetrain. Then the total effect of a 6% drop in mechanical efficiency would translate to something like 10% of a 6% drop in speed (i.e. 0.6%). Approximately. My numbers are for illustrative purposes only, not based on actual measurements of inefficiency. But I think the big issue with IG hubs isn't the actual inefficiency -- it's well known that 11T and 12T sprockets are extremely inefficient, yet nobody complains about their inefficiency vs larger ones -- it's the feel, that slushy, squishy feeling that you're putting power in but it isn't coming out. A derailleur drive train in any gear feels solid under your pedal as you apply power, but 1st gear in a Sturmey AW (and that is, after all, what most people have in their experience bank when you speak of internal geared hubs) doesn't. Also the gear change in a derailleur system, even non-indexed, once it stops clacking, feels positive compared to the gear change on an AW, which somehow does not. People call that inefficiency, even though nobody's measuring power in vs power out. It's that friction box feeling. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
Re: [RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
The feel issue is definitely a big issue with the Rohloff in certain gears. You can feel static in the pedals as it grinds in gear 7, for example. Hear it too. Makes you understand why some riders used to call them pepper grinders and gives you the sensation of pedaling through water. In terms of real world time, I'm as fast in my commutes on my Rohloff-equipped bike as with my derailleur-equipped one. If it weren't for my computer, I might not believe it. From: Steve Palincsar palin...@his.com Reply-To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:24:02 -0500 To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 07:26 -0800, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: Mechanical inefficiency of the drivetrain is not the only thing that makes a cyclist slower. Let's say, for example, that 90% of the total inefficiency comes from tire rolling resistance and aerodynamics, and 10% comes from the mechanical friction and slop in the drivetrain. Then the total effect of a 6% drop in mechanical efficiency would translate to something like 10% of a 6% drop in speed (i.e. 0.6%). Approximately. My numbers are for illustrative purposes only, not based on actual measurements of inefficiency. But I think the big issue with IG hubs isn't the actual inefficiency -- it's well known that 11T and 12T sprockets are extremely inefficient, yet nobody complains about their inefficiency vs larger ones -- it's the feel, that slushy, squishy feeling that you're putting power in but it isn't coming out. A derailleur drive train in any gear feels solid under your pedal as you apply power, but 1st gear in a Sturmey AW (and that is, after all, what most people have in their experience bank when you speak of internal geared hubs) doesn't. Also the gear change in a derailleur system, even non-indexed, once it stops clacking, feels positive compared to the gear change on an AW, which somehow does not. People call that inefficiency, even though nobody's measuring power in vs power out. It's that friction box feeling. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
Re: [RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 09:48 -0800, Dustin Sharp wrote: The feel issue is definitely a big issue with the Rohloff in certain gears. You can feel static in the pedals as it grinds in gear 7, for example. Hear it too. Makes you understand why some riders used to call them pepper grinders and gives you the sensation of pedaling through water. In terms of real world time, I'm as fast in my commutes on my Rohloff-equipped bike as with my derailleur-equipped one. If it weren't for my computer, I might not believe it. Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
Re: [RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
So far, I get the feeling that the internal gears on my Sturmey Archer 8S don't like to be put under a load. It feels fine--just like a regular bike--when I'm spinning on the flats. Going uphill, it feels harder to pedal than it did with a fixed gear in the same ratio. In my experience, the IGH promotes spinning, not mashing. As Dustin noted, my computer tells me I'm riding just as fast with the IGH as I would be on a derailleur or fixed gear, but it sure *feels* different. --Eric campyonly...@me.com www.campyonly.com www.wheelsnorth.org On Nov 19, 2009, at 9:55 AM, Steve Palincsar wrote: On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 09:48 -0800, Dustin Sharp wrote: The feel issue is definitely a big issue with the Rohloff in certain gears. You can feel static in the pedals as it grinds in gear 7, for example. Hear it too. Makes you understand why some riders used to call them pepper grinders and gives you the sensation of pedaling through water. In terms of real world time, I'm as fast in my commutes on my Rohloff-equipped bike as with my derailleur-equipped one. If it weren't for my computer, I might not believe it. Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
[RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
Efficiency is a funny word to those who ride a bike for fun! I agree it may be important if you are in competition, but when I ride and I am out looking at the birds and the beautiful scenery, effeciency? To me, thats why I was attracted to Grant, because his whole philosophy about bike riding has been forgotten by the industry that has forgotten what it was like as a kid to just go out and have fun riding a bike. Thats what makes the RIV so much better and fun! No offense intended Eric, People do ride bikes for different reasons and if training or competition is important, stay with the deraileur! Surf On Nov 19, 12:35 am, Eric Norris campyonly...@me.com wrote: For those who don't have a copy of The Dancing Chain laying around the house, here's a summary of what Frank Berto said about internally geared hubs (IGHs), which is itself a summary of extensive bench testing done in 1998: --Standard derailleur systems achieve 98-99 percent efficiency when the chain is running straight, and 96-97 when in cross-chain mode (such as small cog/small chainring) --Internally geared hubs ranged between 80 and 90 percent efficiency, achieving higher efficiency in lower gears. One IGH tested in direct- drive mode was 95 percent efficient. Berto compared a typical rider (generating 1/8 horsepower) riding up a 4 percent grade in a low (31-inch) gear. --With a standard derailleur bike operating at 96 percent efficiency, the typical rider could climb at 5.2 mph at a cadence of 60 rpm --With an IGH operating at 90 percent, the same rider would be 6 percent less efficient, dropping his/her speed to 5.1 mph Those numbers don't sound too bad, at least for shorter riders. A 4- hour ride on a standard geared bike would take about 4 hours and 15 minutes (or less, since the efficiency of the IGH wouldn't matter at all on downhills). However, applied to an event like PBP, an 84-hour time would become 89 hours if the bike became 6 percent less efficient (or, assuming that half of PBP is more or less downhill, 84 hours would become 87 1/2). I'll continue to test this in the field and see how my Quickbeam's 8- speed Sturmey Archer performs. P.S. No, the vaunted 14-speed Rohloff hub was not part of the '98 test. It's hard to see how it could be too much more efficient than other IGHs, but it could be somewhat closer to a standard setup. P.P.S. If you haven't read The Dancing Chain, you really should. It's a fascinating look back at the early days of cycling, and it proves once again that everything new in bicycling today was in fact invented 100 years ago. Really. --Ericwww.wheelsnorth.orgwww.campyonly.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
Re: [RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
I'm totally into riding slower (ask my friends), but I also do some extreme rides where it could make a real difference to be even a little less efficient. If I'm not trying to stay ahead of control point closing times, let's just noodle along! --Eric campyonly...@me.com www.campyonly.com www.wheelsnorth.org On Nov 19, 2009, at 5:39 AM, Mark wrote: Efficiency is a funny word to those who ride a bike for fun! I agree it may be important if you are in competition, but when I ride and I am out looking at the birds and the beautiful scenery, effeciency? To me, thats why I was attracted to Grant, because his whole philosophy about bike riding has been forgotten by the industry that has forgotten what it was like as a kid to just go out and have fun riding a bike. Thats what makes the RIV so much better and fun! No offense intended Eric, People do ride bikes for different reasons and if training or competition is important, stay with the deraileur! Surf On Nov 19, 12:35 am, Eric Norris campyonly...@me.com wrote: For those who don't have a copy of The Dancing Chain laying around the house, here's a summary of what Frank Berto said about internally geared hubs (IGHs), which is itself a summary of extensive bench testing done in 1998: --Standard derailleur systems achieve 98-99 percent efficiency when the chain is running straight, and 96-97 when in cross-chain mode (such as small cog/small chainring) --Internally geared hubs ranged between 80 and 90 percent efficiency, achieving higher efficiency in lower gears. One IGH tested in direct- drive mode was 95 percent efficient. Berto compared a typical rider (generating 1/8 horsepower) riding up a 4 percent grade in a low (31-inch) gear. --With a standard derailleur bike operating at 96 percent efficiency, the typical rider could climb at 5.2 mph at a cadence of 60 rpm --With an IGH operating at 90 percent, the same rider would be 6 percent less efficient, dropping his/her speed to 5.1 mph Those numbers don't sound too bad, at least for shorter riders. A 4- hour ride on a standard geared bike would take about 4 hours and 15 minutes (or less, since the efficiency of the IGH wouldn't matter at all on downhills). However, applied to an event like PBP, an 84-hour time would become 89 hours if the bike became 6 percent less efficient (or, assuming that half of PBP is more or less downhill, 84 hours would become 87 1/2). I'll continue to test this in the field and see how my Quickbeam's 8- speed Sturmey Archer performs. P.S. No, the vaunted 14-speed Rohloff hub was not part of the '98 test. It's hard to see how it could be too much more efficient than other IGHs, but it could be somewhat closer to a standard setup. P.P.S. If you haven't read The Dancing Chain, you really should. It's a fascinating look back at the early days of cycling, and it proves once again that everything new in bicycling today was in fact invented 100 years ago. Really. --Ericwww.wheelsnorth.orgwww.campyonly.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=. --Eric campyonly...@me.com www.campyonly.com www.wheelsnorth.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
Re: [RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
on 11/19/09 5:39 AM, Mark at mclbicy...@gmail.com wrote: Efficiency is a funny word to those who ride a bike for fun! I agree it may be important if you are in competition, but when I ride and I am out looking at the birds and the beautiful scenery, effeciency? To me, thats why I was attracted to Grant, because his whole philosophy about bike riding has been forgotten by the industry that has forgotten what it was like as a kid to just go out and have fun riding a bike. Thats what makes the RIV so much better and fun! No offense intended Eric, People do ride bikes for different reasons and if training or competition is important, stay with the deraileur! I think the bicycle is the most wonderfully efficient tool we've managed to come up with, and don't find the ideas of effiency to be at odds with GP or Rivendell in general. My Go/No-Go moment really came with rise of full suspension (well, actually _front_ suspension, as I kept asking myself why the heck I had to overhaul my old Judy fork every 3-4 weeks, and why it made sense to own three cartridges, so the other two could be rotated back to Rock Shox when they failed...). Everything seemed to be complexifying and corrupting a simple system until the tinkering and finicky-ness of the equipment almost became an end to itself. When the idea of Stable Plaform Valve systems in bicycle shock absorbers came out, it was an interesting idea, but it allowed designers to start re-using designs that had horrific effects because it allowed them to shift the fixing of the drawbacks back onto the shock. You could put the rear pivot point outside of the chainrings again, because you could correct for the pedaling induced suspension with the valving. It reminded me of the stealth airplanes, which, if I read it right, are actually unstable in flight and need multiple computers to correct and recorrect to keep it flying. All of which is a darn long-winded way of saying that for some, the efficiency is exactly at the heart of GP's ideas, and for most, a simple fixed hub, coastable hub or externally shifted multi-gear setup embodies that. Now that I've got the Quickbeam back up and running, one of the things I love about it is the simple efficiency. Certainly, if I had the stray funds this year, I'd be playing around with the S-A 3 speed fixed hub on the Quickbeam. (Also, I do snag my wife's Nexus-8 hubbed bike now and again, which is perfect for mail and farmer's market runs.) I guess my feeling is that all of the Riv designs invite adaptation and allow us to add complexity where we want it. - Jim -- Jim Edgar cyclofi...@earthlink.net Current Classics Bicycle Photo Gallery - http://www.cyclofiend.com/cc Cross Bike Photo Gallery - http://www.cyclofiend.com/cx Single Speed Garage Photo Gallery - http://www.cyclofiend.com/ssg Working Bikes Practical Hardware - http://www.cyclofiend.com/working Work Shops of the iBob's - http://www.cyclofiend.com/shop Send In Your Photos! - Here's how: http://www.cyclofiend.com/guidelines That which is overdesigned, too highly specific, anticipates outcome; the anticipation of outcome guarantees, if not failure, the absence of grace. William Gibson - All Tomorrow's Parties -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
Re: [RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
--- On Thu, 11/19/09, Mark mclbicy...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mark mclbicy...@gmail.com Subject: [RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say To: RBW Owners Bunch rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Date: Thursday, November 19, 2009, 5:39 AM Efficiency is a funny word to those who ride a bike for fun! I agree it may be important if you are in competition, but when I ride and I am out looking at the birds and the beautiful scenery, effeciency? To me, thats why I was attracted to Grant, because his whole philosophy about bike riding has been forgotten by the industry that has forgotten what it was like as a kid to just go out and have fun riding a bike. Thats what makes the RIV so much better and fun! No offense intended Eric, People do ride bikes for different reasons and if training or competition is important, stay with the deraileur! Surf Ah! Well put, Mark (Surf?) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
[RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
Mr. Berto's math is quite close. Power varies with the cube of the speed (speed x speed x speed). 5.2 cubed / 5.1 cubed = 1.060 or about 6% difference in power required. Angus On Nov 19, 8:17 am, Ron Farnsworth r2far...@yahoo.com wrote: Bad math. If 96% efficient = 5.2 mph, then 90% efficient would be 4.875 mph, not 5.1 mph. And that's with worst case efficiency numbers for the chain setup and best case efficiency numbers for the IGH. Based on this, the other calculations are off too. Correct me if I'm wrong. --- On Thu, 11/19/09, Eric Norris campyonly...@me.com wrote: From: Eric Norris campyonly...@me.com Subject: [RBW] Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Date: Thursday, November 19, 2009, 12:35 AM For those who don't have a copy of The Dancing Chain laying around the house, here's a summary of what Frank Berto said about internally geared hubs (IGHs), which is itself a summary of extensive bench testing done in 1998: --Standard derailleur systems achieve 98-99 percent efficiency when the chain is running straight, and 96-97 when in cross-chain mode (such as small cog/small chainring) --Internally geared hubs ranged between 80 and 90 percent efficiency, achieving higher efficiency in lower gears. One IGH tested in direct- drive mode was 95 percent efficient. Berto compared a typical rider (generating 1/8 horsepower) riding up a 4 percent grade in a low (31-inch) gear. --With a standard derailleur bike operating at 96 percent efficiency, the typical rider could climb at 5.2 mph at a cadence of 60 rpm --With an IGH operating at 90 percent, the same rider would be 6 percent less efficient, dropping his/her speed to 5.1 mph Those numbers don't sound too bad, at least for shorter riders. A 4- hour ride on a standard geared bike would take about 4 hours and 15 minutes (or less, since the efficiency of the IGH wouldn't matter at all on downhills). However, applied to an event like PBP, an 84-hour time would become 89 hours if the bike became 6 percent less efficient (or, assuming that half of PBP is more or less downhill, 84 hours would become 87 1/2). I'll continue to test this in the field and see how my Quickbeam's 8- speed Sturmey Archer performs. P.S. No, the vaunted 14-speed Rohloff hub was not part of the '98 test. It's hard to see how it could be too much more efficient than other IGHs, but it could be somewhat closer to a standard setup. P.P.S. If you haven't read The Dancing Chain, you really should. It's a fascinating look back at the early days of cycling, and it proves once again that everything new in bicycling today was in fact invented 100 years ago. Really. --Ericwww.wheelsnorth.orgwww.campyonly.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
Re: [RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
The power output says 1/8 hp and I assume that is a fixed value, and I discounted aerodynamics and rolling resistance as well for such a small change in speed. Beyond that, isn't it a simple linear relationship between drivetrain efficiency and speed? After re-reading I think there may have been a simple clerical error in the writing, as the numbers do proportion out to 5.1 mph if one uses the 95% (direct drive mode efficiency of the IGH) instead of the 90% number used in the example. That accounts for what I originally thought may have been a math mistake. --- On Thu, 11/19/09, Angus angusle...@sbcglobal.net wrote: From: Angus angusle...@sbcglobal.net Subject: [RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say To: RBW Owners Bunch rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Date: Thursday, November 19, 2009, 9:31 PM Mr. Berto's math is quite close. Power varies with the cube of the speed (speed x speed x speed). 5.2 cubed / 5.1 cubed = 1.060 or about 6% difference in power required. Angus On Nov 19, 8:17 am, Ron Farnsworth r2far...@yahoo.com wrote: Bad math. If 96% efficient = 5.2 mph, then 90% efficient would be 4.875 mph, not 5.1 mph. And that's with worst case efficiency numbers for the chain setup and best case efficiency numbers for the IGH. Based on this, the other calculations are off too. Correct me if I'm wrong. --- On Thu, 11/19/09, Eric Norris campyonly...@me.com wrote: From: Eric Norris campyonly...@me.com Subject: [RBW] Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Date: Thursday, November 19, 2009, 12:35 AM For those who don't have a copy of The Dancing Chain laying around the house, here's a summary of what Frank Berto said about internally geared hubs (IGHs), which is itself a summary of extensive bench testing done in 1998: --Standard derailleur systems achieve 98-99 percent efficiency when the chain is running straight, and 96-97 when in cross-chain mode (such as small cog/small chainring) --Internally geared hubs ranged between 80 and 90 percent efficiency, achieving higher efficiency in lower gears. One IGH tested in direct- drive mode was 95 percent efficient. Berto compared a typical rider (generating 1/8 horsepower) riding up a 4 percent grade in a low (31-inch) gear. --With a standard derailleur bike operating at 96 percent efficiency, the typical rider could climb at 5.2 mph at a cadence of 60 rpm --With an IGH operating at 90 percent, the same rider would be 6 percent less efficient, dropping his/her speed to 5.1 mph Those numbers don't sound too bad, at least for shorter riders. A 4- hour ride on a standard geared bike would take about 4 hours and 15 minutes (or less, since the efficiency of the IGH wouldn't matter at all on downhills). However, applied to an event like PBP, an 84-hour time would become 89 hours if the bike became 6 percent less efficient (or, assuming that half of PBP is more or less downhill, 84 hours would become 87 1/2). I'll continue to test this in the field and see how my Quickbeam's 8- speed Sturmey Archer performs. P.S. No, the vaunted 14-speed Rohloff hub was not part of the '98 test. It's hard to see how it could be too much more efficient than other IGHs, but it could be somewhat closer to a standard setup. P.P.S. If you haven't read The Dancing Chain, you really should. It's a fascinating look back at the early days of cycling, and it proves once again that everything new in bicycling today was in fact invented 100 years ago. Really. --Ericwww.wheelsnorth.orgwww.campyonly.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
Re: [RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
On Nov 19, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Steve Palincsar wrote: On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 07:26 -0800, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: Mechanical inefficiency of the drivetrain is not the only thing that makes a cyclist slower. Let's say, for example, that 90% of the total inefficiency comes from tire rolling resistance and aerodynamics, and 10% comes from the mechanical friction and slop in the drivetrain. Then the total effect of a 6% drop in mechanical efficiency would translate to something like 10% of a 6% drop in speed (i.e. 0.6%). Approximately. My numbers are for illustrative purposes only, not based on actual measurements of inefficiency. But I think the big issue with IG hubs isn't the actual inefficiency -- it's well known that 11T and 12T sprockets are extremely inefficient, yet nobody complains about their inefficiency vs larger ones -- it's the feel, that slushy, squishy feeling that you're putting power in but it isn't coming out. A derailleur drive train in any gear feels solid under your pedal as you apply power, but 1st gear in a Sturmey AW (and that is, after all, what most people have in their experience bank when you speak of internal geared hubs) doesn't. That's not my experience with AWs and Sachs 3 speed hubs. YMMV. Also the gear change in a derailleur system, even non-indexed, once it stops clacking, feels positive compared to the gear change on an AW, which somehow does not. People call that inefficiency, even though nobody's measuring power in vs power out. It's that friction box feeling. Hmm. Maybe my hubs have been in fortunately good shape. My current IGH, a Sram T3, seems about as efficient as my derailleur setups by feel. The main problem is the overly large jumps between gears. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
[RBW] Re: Internal Hub Efficiency: What the Experts Say
On Nov 19, 2009, at 5:16 PM, CycloFiend wrote: on 11/19/09 5:39 AM, Mark at mclbicy...@gmail.com wrote: Efficiency is a funny word to those who ride a bike for fun! I agree it may be important if you are in competition, but when I ride and I am out looking at the birds and the beautiful scenery, effeciency? To me, thats why I was attracted to Grant, because his whole philosophy about bike riding has been forgotten by the industry that has forgotten what it was like as a kid to just go out and have fun riding a bike. Thats what makes the RIV so much better and fun! No offense intended Eric, People do ride bikes for different reasons and if training or competition is important, stay with the deraileur! I think the bicycle is the most wonderfully efficient tool we've managed to come up with, and don't find the ideas of effiency to be at odds with GP or Rivendell in general. Well, we're begging the question efficiency for what? For a Tour de France TT? Or for a pleasant afternoon's ride on a sunny day? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=.
